The regular meeting of the Utah Transportation Commission, held at the Garden City Town Hall - Council Chambers, 145 West Center, Garden City, Utah, was called to order at 9:21 a.m. by Commission Chairman Glen E. Brown. He introduced the Commission and welcomed those attending.

Approval of MinutesCommissioner Larkin moved to approve the minutes of the August 26, 1999, Commission meeting held in Salt Lake City, Utah. It was seconded by Commissioner Bodily and approved unanimously.

Local Area PresentationChairman Brown turned the time over to Commissioner Bodily for the local area presentation and public comments portion of the agenda. Commissioner Bodily asked those attending to introduce themselves since itís such a small group.

Dyke LeFevre, Region One Director, distributed a handout and reviewed various projects in Cache and Rich Counties from 1997 to 2002, that had either been completed, are currently under construction, or planned for future years. Some of the projects Mr. LeFevre mentioned included a Wyoming line to Randolph maintenance project completed this summer, a project in Logan Canyon from Tony Grove to Franklin Basin that will be advertised next July, and a project at the Bear Lake overlook which will be advertised this fall. Future projects included a spot improvement project for SR 89 at Bear Lake Marina; a project on 100 East and Mountain Road in Logan; preliminary engineering for the Smithfield to the Idaho boarder project; and preliminary engineering for a Logan Canyon Summit to Garden City project.

Public CommentsBill Cox, Rich County Commissioner brought up the Marina project which will add turning lanes and widen the road there. He said there was a problem two or three years ago when the lake was really low because that was the only place people were able to launch their boats. Since then, the lake has risen, and additional boat ramps have been built. So, there are several other launching locations that are deep and adequate enough that if the lake level drops again there wouldnít be the same problems as a few years ago. However, Commissioner Cox said they do have an intersection on the south end of Garden City where the County is going to move a county road, bring it in to Highway 30, and move the intersection up about 1/4 mile. Itís a bad corner and there are continual problems with accidents, especially on holidays. There is also a trailer court and a newly developed subdivision, and the traffic is only going to get heavier. Commissioner Cox said they are wondering about the possibility of switching the project at the marina for a project at the intersection that is being moved because they feel the intersection is more important and is a bigger safety issue than the marina right now.

Dyke LeFevre responded they would have to have a study done on that intersection to see if it is as high of a priority as the marina project. If itís a higher priority, there is a possibility that it could be moved up. Clint Topham said there are a couple of avenues Mr. LeFevre could pursue, including the spot improvement program. Chairman Brown asked about the Departmentís internal standards or procedures on something like this. Mr. Topham said there is a certain amount of STP funds that have to be spent on safety projects, and in order for the intersection to qualify as a safety project, the accident rate has to meet a certain criteria. Mr. LeFevre stated that if he had his druthers, he would like to do both projects. With the spot improvements, a new list is developed every year, so it may be possible to do both. Chairman Brown said heís getting the sense that if a decision is made not to do the marina project first, then thereís a chance that neither project will get done next year with the 2000 money. Mr. LeFevre said if the intersection becomes a higher priority than the marina and the switch is made, the marina project would go back into the mix and have to fight its way back up the list. If other projects around the state end up having a higher priority, then the marina project may not get completed.

Commissioner Eastman stated that if the marina project is already on the STIP then it ought to be done. If the intersection is in fact a safety concern, then it seems it would move forward automatically. Abandoning one project for the other is a mistake. Commissioner Cox said they certainly donít want to lose the marina project, but the county is going to move that intersection, and felt that it would be the ideal time for the Department to put in turning lanes while the county was doing their work. With the preliminary dirt work being done this fall and with the ground being purchased, they are going to get started, do some fill in, and move the intersection. And although they probably wonít have the road complete before winter comes, they should have it completed by early summer next year. Allen Harrison, Bear Lake Regional Commission asked about the competition of spot improvement dollars. Mr. LeFevre said the competition is statewide. Director Warne said it would be very risky to put the marina project back into the mix. There was additional discussion regarding the safety program.

Representative Loraine Pace brought up several of her concerns. She said that Logan Canyon ought to be a really high priority. As for Highway 6, after recently driving that road, she said it has to be one of the worst roads in the state. And, she thinks that another $.5 million should not be put into Sardine Canyon. Itís not a priority compared to some of the other needs in the state. Sheís against putting the cement barriers in the canyon, and most of the accidents that have happened have been caused by carelessness. It is a good road. She would rather see the money go into a project that is more critical.

Commissioner Bodily asked for an update on the barriers. Mr. LeFevre said the contract for the barriers has been awarded, and work will start in the next few weeks. Commissioner Bodily noted that he received a call from the chairman of the Cache County Council saying theyíve gone on record as opposing the barriers. Representative Pace indicated that the Cache County Legislators are also opposed. Commissioner Bodily said the Box Elder County Legislators were strongly in favor of the barriers. Chairman Brown said the Commission thought they were really responding to the will of the elected officials and what the majority wanted. The Commission was definitely not trying to push this. Commissioner Eastman said there seemed to be an absolute demand for barriers. He noted that the barriers will increase the number of accidents, while reducing the fatalities. Representative Pace said thereís always a vocal minority when an accident occurs. Chairman Brown indicated that at the public meeting in Brigham City, the people there were very adamant. Commissioner Clyde wondered about gaining consensus, how itís done and whoís responsible. He said the Commission is constantly in a dilemma with these kinds of demands. Discussion followed on the support and opposition of the walls.

Noise Abatement PolicyCommissioner Wells said the newest copy of the policy that was just handed out has a couple of changes. Most of the changes are a little different way of wording things. She said they are trying to involve the local governments in making decisions regarding noise abatement. When dealing with a variety of community councils, itís difficult to get any kind of a consensus. In the Wasatch Boulevard area, there are so many citizen groups, it makes it hard to have a spokesperson or someone to contact to get information out to everyone. Commissioner Wells said her point is there needs to be a format where there can be some decent communication and more support from the local governments. This would be a way to channel citizen involvement and keep it more organized so they know who to go to for answers. Another change in the policy would be changing the current ordinance that says there only needs to be a majority for the sound walls. It really should be 2/3. Having a higher number might help the local governments feel more comfortable with the decisions they help make. Additionally, a change has been made in regards to the word impacted. The policy used to say affected, it now says impacted, and impacted has been defined as those residents that have a 65 decibel sound rating or above. Anyone who drives down the road or lives in the area of a noise wall calls themselves affected. But the people that the noise abatement is supposed to help are the people who are really impacted by the noise. Changing the wording to impacted may help clarify things a little bit, and maybe put a little more of a quantitative approach to those who actually need the help as far as noise is concerned. It gets too complicated having two definitions.

Commissioner Larkin commended Commissioner Wells and the others who worked on the policy and said it is a great document. Chairman Brown asked if there had been any discussions with the local governments that will be impacted by this policy. Commissioner Wells said that has not been done, and a decision needs to be made on how to let them know. Discussion ensued on how to notify the local agencies. Commissioner Wells noted that they are not adding that the local governments are involved, that part is already in the policy. What is being taken out is that the Department and the Commission has to respond to every individual citizen or citizens group. Those people will have their input, but it would be channeled through a local government. Itís an opportunity for a local government to take control of their specific area and give their citizens a chance to talk. Clint Topham explained how the changes in the policy will affect three areas currently under consideration, Kimball Junction, Farmington, and Edgeware.

Commissioner Eastman expressed his concern regarding the 2/3 figure, and said he doesnít feel that is enough. He was also concerned about leaving the word implemented in there because once there is a 2/3 majority for the wall, it would mean the walls would have to be built. There would be no reason to bring it to the Commission then. The problem is that the same things will happen as have happened on Wasatch Boulevard. The Commission thought everybody wanted the walls. Same thing with the barriers in Sardine Canyon. Now, all of a sudden, there isnít consensus, and a lot of time is being spent on things people donít want. It slows the progress. Toughen the paragraph to make sure the people really want sound walls. A 1/3 vocal minority can take an issue a long way. Commissioner Wells said the 2/3 number is just arbitrary, it could be any number, really. The whole point of putting in a little higher number is to help the local government have a place to work from. Commissioner Eastman said the number just shouldnít compel the Commission to approve a request. Robb Edgar responded he thinks then, the policy should say considered instead of implemented. Commissioner Eastman said in the future when the Commission votes on sound walls and there is 91% of the people that want them, he would still be curious as to what the other 9% of the people think. And with this kind of a highly impacted structure and the impacts it has on a neighborhood, the Commission ought to hear all of the issues. He thinks the Commission tries to do that, but he doesnít know what it takes to get the community at large to pay attention. The Open Houses are a great example. Very few people show up. Itís hard to get their attention until after the fact. And now thatís why there is such a problem on Wasatch Boulevard. Chairman Brown said Commissioner Eastman has made a good point. He also asked if agency has been defined anywhere in the policy. Mr. Edgar said the definition for government is locally elected. Chairman Brown asked what is local? Is it the city council, the planning commission, or community council? Mr. Topham said the easy thing to do is to say municipality. Thatís the way it is in the code, and it makes more sense. Also, this policy will go through administrative rule making and will have the force of law after that. It currently is an administrative rule now, but it will need to be amended. Additional discussion focused on the administrative rulemaking process.

Commissioner Wells asked about drafting a letter to the cities to tell them the Commission has made a few changes in the noise wall policy. And, for purposes of improving communications, and to make these issues pertain to city ordinances and to concerns in the community, when someone comes to the city with a sound wall issue, they should take the lead. The Department would like to have the cityís input when the issue comes up, and have their help and support. Commissioner Eastman said to also have the letter say that noise walls will only be considered when a specific recommendation has been reached by the municipality. Chairman Brown said there definitely needs to be some kind of communication. Director Warne suggested that by adopting the policy today, then sending a letter out saying the policy is going to go through administrative rulemaking, there will be less backlash from the cities, rather than saying the policy is a draft and will be adopted next month. The cities will have their opportunity to comment during the rulemaking process.

Commissioner Wells made a motion to adopt the noise abatement policy with the changes that have been suggested today ó changing the word local agencies/governments to the word municipalities, and changing the word implemented to the word considered, on page 7 under Public Involvement, number 2 ó and to also send a letter and a copy of the policy to the local municipalities for their review, with comments made under the administrative rule making procedure. It was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and approved unanimously.

Kimball Junction Noise WallsAndrew Gemperline explained that Kimball Junction in Summit County is the area in question, Is a residential community very much confined, with two entry points on either side of the Kimball Junction interchange. The homes in question are quantitative issues of the policy in terms of the number of residents, their locations, and their receptors. Today the noise levels range from 63 to 68 decibels. The future 2020 volumes will go from about 67 to 71 decibels. Mr. Gemperline referred to the information in the Commissionerís binders and of pictures taken from the most adjacent homes in the area. Also in the binders is a summary of public comments regarding noise mitigation.

Mr. Gemperline stated that this process was started on March 30th of this year because they knew noise levels were high enough. This is a type one project, so it wasnít instigated by the community, but rather by the project being built and the traffic impacts. Following the public comments summary is a synopsis from a letter sent to the Summit County Commission, who was considered the municipality in this case. Their concurrence or non-concurrence was requested, with a petition that the Department was in charge of arranging and getting it documented. Letters were sent to every impacted resident by certified mail. However, not all of those were delivered, so meetings were held, and some residents were personally called. Of the 23 impacted residents, 22 received their petitions. Out of those 22, twelve responded in favor of the walls, two responded against, and eight didnít respond at all. In the letter it was made clear that a non response was considered a vote against the noise wall. So, that puts it at 52% of the residents for the noise wall. As of today, that is not enough. The county made it very clear in their letter that they do not concur with the noise walls. And based upon the earlier discussion today and the countyís non-concurrence, the recommendation would be that the project not include the noise walls. Mr. Gemperline said that additional comments were received this week from residents in the area. He then proceeded to read the comments from two e-mails that were received, one from Mr. Jim Kavanaugh and one from Mr. Robert McKay. Commissioner Eastman said those residents ought to be attending the County Commission meetings. Mr. Gemperline said those residents who have called have been told to contact the Summit County Commission. Chairman Brown asked if an action was needed. Mr. Gemperline said an action is needed.

Commissioner Clyde moved to approve the recommendation of the Summit County Commission to not build the noise walls at Kimball Junction. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and approved unanimously.

Planning and ProgrammingApproval of the WFRC TIPLinda Toy Hull stated that this item was included on the agenda in case an agreement was worked out. That has not happened. Itís the same issue as last month. The handout that was distributed includes a letter received from Congressman Merrill Cook dated August 26th. The second page is the language that was in TEA-21. And, as has been discussed before, the issue involves the 12300 South High Priority money. Ms. Hull reviewed the situation in detail with the Commission.

Ms. Hull explained there are essentially four earmarks in TEA 21 for 12300 South. There is $6.8 million for a project from 700 East to the Jordan River, and $5 million for a project from the Jordan River to Bangerter Highway. There is currently a Centennial project which encompasses the piece from the Jordan River to Redwood Road, and the $5 million earmark was to go towards the Jordan River to Redwood Road section of that project. However, Riverton wants to spend those funds on the city owned portion of the road from Redwood Road to Bangerter Highway instead. The way the legislation is set in TEA 21, Congressman Cook and Riverton City believe that it states that it was supposed to be spent on the city portion of the road. The Department believes that it didnít state that because it did say from the Jordan River to Bangerter, which includes the Jordan River to Redwood Road section. Ms. Hull said there was previously an agreement with the Mayor that the Department would extend the current EIS out to Bangerter Highway, and Riverton would pick up the cost of the EIS on their city owned road, since itís not on the state system. The city later said it was their intention to use this High Priority money to pay the $200,000, which the Department is saying it is already on the STIP as a state project. So, the TIP is not going to be amended by WFRC until this issue is resolved. The Department is proposing to have a meeting with all the players next week to discuss this issue. The Departmentís concern is, having direction from the Legislature as to how funds are to be spent, if the federal contribution comes up short, the Centennial fund comes up short, and itís the Legislature that is responsible to raise taxes or bond more to make up that shortfall. Also, there is a project on 10600 South that is in the same boat. South Jordan could make the same case that they want those funds spent on the city owned portion of the road and not the state road.

Director Warne said the Department is in somewhat of a dilemma here. As an executive branch, the Department takes financial direction from the Legislature, but now a member of Congress is giving direction to the Department to do something that is contrary to what the Legislature is saying to do. Discussion ensued regarding the letter from Congressman Cook and the 12300 South project. Clint Topham noted that in several meetings heís been involved in, there had been agreements made, but then one person or another did not ultimately agree to what had been worked out. Mr. Topham said he did suggest that one way they could do it was for WFRC to pay for the EIS out of STP funds, then have the Commission make a commitment to WFRC that the Department spend that much money out of the any area statewide STP funds in the Salt Lake urbanized area on another project to be identified. That suggestion never made it through the whole process, but should be included in the upcoming discussions.

The discussion shifted briefly to I-80. Director Warne said at some point the Commission needs to have a very detailed briefing on air quality. He said, in Salt Lake County there is going to be a lapse of conformity in January of 2001, which means that any project that hasnít moved forward for construction at that point will be put on hold until conformity is achieved. The Department has been meeting extensively with people from DEQ. The concern is the fact that there are critical needs in Salt Lake County that need to get going. Ms. Toy and Max Ditlevsen are looking into what this means to the Department, and if some of these projects could be advanced and built in that time frame. The Legacy Parkway is a project that wonít get built for several years, as late as 2005, if it doesnít get under construction, or at least advertised by January 2001. With I-15, for example, the only reason that was able to be done was because a lot of work had been done by a lot of people starting in the 1980ís, with the pace picking up in the early 1990ís. So, the Department was in a position to do I-15. After the Legacy Parkway, the next large priority for the Department would probably be I-80 from I-15 to Parleyís. The Department is in a position right now, and it seems appropriate, to go ahead and engage a consultant to start the environmental work on I-80. One reason for that is when the Department is in a position two or three years from now, when revenue is sufficient to build that project, itís ready. Another reason is if for some reason the Legacy Parkway doesnít materialize, the Department has a backup project that could be done. Some of the challenges on I-80 has to do with bridge work, and possibly deferring part of that work if a larger project is done, while not upsetting the budgetary concept. But to do the environmental work, there has to be an amendment to the STIP.

There was also brief discussion regarding Highway 6 and the slide area that slated to be reconstructed. Commissioner Larkin expressed his concerns for that project and how the public would perceive spending the money on a portion of road that seems to be ok and not making improvements on SR 6 further east instead. Engineers might tell a different story, but the public would never buy it. Chairman Brown concurred with Commissioner Larkin and said he has the same strong feelings. Director Warne stated that if that section is left to deteriorate, then there will be a huge investment ahead. It comes down to the fact that the whole transportation program is underfunded. Chairman Brown asked about the time line for that project, if it comes to a vote by as a Commission to redirect the funds. Randy Lamoreaux explained that Region Three is beginning to move on that project, and if there were to be a change, it would need to be done very quickly. Thereís not necessarily a trade off, and $10 million is a paltry amount to do anything between Helper and the top of the mountain. And, if itís going to be kept in the STIP year itís in, then they would have to move forward with the preliminary engineering. Director Warne said the Department has taken the Commission at its word when the STIP was adopted, and the project is in the STIP. Dave Miles said there are some surface and subsurface problems there. Director Warne said the Commission should appreciate the fact that even if there was a change made and half the money was put somewhere else, that doesnít translate into a project next summer. Thereís environmental work to be done, and thereís nothing immediate about the process.

STIP Amendment ó Recreational Trails ProjectsLinda Toy Hull said the TEA 21 funds for recreational trails are transportation funds that come through UDOT, then are distributed to the Department of Natural Resources. Because they are transportation funds, they have to be in the STIP, even though UDOT only administers the funds. Projects number one, two, and three, where they are in the WFRC area, could not have any funds spent on them because they are not included in the TIP, and would have to wait pending concurrence. So, for now a motion would be needed for projects numbered four through sixteen, for inclusion in the current FY 99 STIP.

Commissioner moved to approve the request as presented. It was seconded by Commissioner Bodily and approved unanimously.

Property Acquisitions on US-89Clint Topham said the two requests are listed in the binders. The properties are on US-89, they are properties that are needed, and the money is available to purchase them. Mr. Topham recommended that the Commission authorize the purchase of the properties.

Commissioner Eastman made a motion to purchase the properties. It was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and approved unanimously.

Wild and Scenic River ResolutionLynn Zollinger said this next item is the Wild and Scenic River designation, and is in the form of a resolution. He read the ďNow, ThereforeĒ section of the resolution and said what it refers to is that the concept of the 4-F may come into play. In the last statement on the last page, the Commission opposes any attempt to designate any of the above waterways as either wild or scenic as proposed in a US forest service draft inventory rivers, and suggest that any designation of wild or scenic, under the wild and scenic rivers be denied. Commissioner Bodily said he met with Randy Lamoreaux, Lynn Zollinger, and others, and have been in the process of putting this together over the last few months. It pretty much spells out the conflicts the Department would have with it in the Whereas section. He said thereís mixed feelings from the people in Logan, but most of the people heís talked to are opposed to anything that would get in the way of going ahead with the plans in Logan Canyon. This has the potential of doing that as long as the designation remains recreational. It would be less likely there would be any conflict with the replacement of the bridges and widening in the canyon. Mr. Zollinger said he saw a revision of the Forest Service draft that reclassifies the stream elements listed as all recreational rather than scenic, including Beaver Creek. Commissioner Bodily said that as long as this is under consideration before Congress, it could still be modified and brought back more restrictive.

Commissioner Bodily moved to adopt the resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Eastman and approved unanimously.

Informational ItemsSlide in Echo CanyonClint Topham said the Commission approved a project within the last couple of years to fix a slide up on I-80. Unfortunately, it was fixed quite well. There were several different proposals that were brought forward for that project, and some of them were multi-million dollar proposals. But the Department chose one that was about $500,000, knowing there was more risk involved than with the other fixes. They planned on shooting the slide and breaking up the rock. Mr. Topham said they were afraid of what might happen, then showed a portion of a video of what happened with the slide, as rocks crumbled and covered the eastbound lanes of I-80.

Mr. Topham said there have been three proposals made to help with this situation. One is to continue with what has already been done, and haul the dirt away and see if they can make it work with the original design. The second alternative is to build a wall along there, like the one built in Sardine Canyon. The third alternative is to move the road. The first proposal has been discounted because it doesnít provide the factor of safety needed there. The second proposal is written on the handout that was distributed. They havenít received a cost estimate for the third proposal yet. A decision hasnít been made as to which of the alternatives will be recommended to the Commission, so this is just for informational purposes today. They are moving as expeditiously as possible to get the cost estimates, but it is unknown whether the Department can get the project all done this fall. Currently there is a crossover and one lane in each direction on the westbound lanes.

Agricultural Access Roads in Beaver CountyClint Topham commented that at the last meeting, this item was brought before the Commission by Beaver County who was requesting additional funds. The Department explained at that time what options were available, and didnít see any way legally they could program funds for the Agricultural Access Roads this year. After discussions with the Legislature, the Department felt they couldnít change the Centennial Highway Program without the approval of the Legislature. Representative Hatch had made a change in the maintenance shed program with possibility that money might be used for the Access Roads. However, that money goes into the Transportation Fund, and the Department canít appropriate Transportation Fund monies to local governments for use on non-state roads. At the last meeting, Commissioner Clyde made a motion to table the item, and directed the staff to meet with Representative Hatch. Mr. Topham said he met with Representative Hatch and explained the situation to him. Representative Hatchís response was that if there is no money available, then tell Beaver County there is no money available.

Chairman Brown said he talked to Representative Hatch earlier this morning, and he still had questions and didnít understand exactly why it was that way. Chairman Brown said he tried to give him an explanation, but thought the Department should write him a letter with a better explanation. Mr. Topham said he would be happy to write a letter of explanation to Representative Hatch. Then, the item could be on next monthís agenda for an official action. Chairman Brown said the course of action then, will be to send communication to Representative Hatch, take an action at the next meeting, then send a letter to the Beaver County Commission.

Noise Wall Meetings FacilitatorCommissioner Wells briefly discussed the possibility of using a facilitator to mediate the discussion with the two noise wall groups so they can get some survey results put together. She said she currently has two proposals and is waiting for the third one. Things are so confrontational that having a third person with no interest in this would help at least in getting some good questions they can ask on the questionnaire. There would be about 300 impacted homes that would be surveyed. Director Warne commented that he would recommend going ahead with the facilitator, and billing it against the sound wall project, since this is what precipitated it. Clint Topham noted they will have to go through the procurement process for this.

Upcoming MeetingsThe next meeting of the Utah Transportation Commission will be held on Thursday, October 14, 1999, at the Provo City Council Chambers in Provo, Utah. The following dates and locations have also been scheduled:

November 12, 1999 - Kanab

December 13, 1999 - Salt Lake City

The meeting adjourned at 12:27 p.m.

The following Commissioners, staff members and others were in attendance: